Hi Lucas, Thanks for the interface. On 21-07-2025 22:26, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
2. if it contains 'status'='lintian failed', either block the package,
or ignore lintian alltogether
Have the 4 failures been reported to the src:lintian? All 4 packages are in testing and I don't want to block them on new uploads for a failure of lintian to run. Skipping the lintian check doesn't sound great.
The output could link to e.g. https://udd.debian.org/lintian/?a52dec (The default display only lists errors and warnings, but I suppose we are not going to block on anything else) Let me know if that works for you.
For reproducible builds and autopkgtests we have a retry button. How much sense do you think that makes for lintian? If we expect to have failures like above, I think it would be good for maintainers to have the option to retry. How often does udd retry by itself?
I saw the discussion about the number of tag occurences for a given source package, that should be used to identify regressions. Tags are currently only listed once per source. It would be possible to add the number of occurences for each tag (with distinct "information"). Let me know.
Currently I'm only thinking of aliased-location, which we really want to prevent altogether, but in the future we might want to add things that shouldn't regress. But maybe we can delay that to when we get there unless you already have a good idea for that?
Paul
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature